GPS data, Fox vs. 4th gen, 10/6/12 TX event

[CMC#11]

If Mosty was 2 seconds off Proctor, I would be demanding change in favor of the Fox. He's not. The difference in times is easily explainable if you know both drivers.

What does that mean Glenn?

 

One thing I keep going back to is Kellam. His first year in his SN-95 was full of DNF's. He just could not catch a break. His 2nd year of wheel to wheel he kicked our ass. All this in a SN-95 against the same Proctor we have now. He also was faster than Mosty w/ Kellam having less seat time.

Are you discrediting natural ability? There are drivers that start racing and are fast out of the gate and there are other drivers that could race for 30 years and never get out of the cellar.

I guess you aren't aware of the insane amount of testing that Kellam did in 2010 and years prior to work on his driving and setup. He had run karts for years prior to coming to CMC, had a strict diet he stuck to, and drove either his race car or his kart every single week. I guarantee he did more testing in 2010 than all other TX racers combined.

 

From what I know, there ain't much difference between a max'ed out Fox and a max'ed out SN-95. Those two car should be very close.

Then you don't know much apparently.

The SN95 has a longer wheelbase, wider track width, better k-member / sway bar design, and better aero. All of these differences add up greatly.

[Glenn]

If Mosty was 2 seconds off Proctor, I would be demanding change in favor of the Fox. He's not. The difference in times is easily explainable if you know both drivers.

What does that mean Glenn?

 

It's a double rainbow.

Hang in there until about 1:20.

 

One thing I keep going back to is Kellam. His first year in his SN-95 was full of DNF's. He just could not catch a break. His 2nd year of wheel to wheel he kicked our ass. All this in a SN-95 against the same Proctor we have now. He also was faster than Mosty w/ Kellam having less seat time.

Are you discrediting natural ability? There are drivers that start racing and are fast out of the gate and there are other drivers that could race for 30 years and never get out of the cellar.

I guess you aren't aware of the insane amount of testing that Kellam did in 2010 and years prior to work on his driving and setup. He had run karts for years prior to coming to CMC, had a strict diet he stuck to, and drove either his race car or his kart every single week. I guarantee he did more testing in 2010 than all other TX racers combined.

I'm sure he did. But how did that make the platform go any faster than it was capable of going? I did alot of this type stuff as well from 2006-2008 (testing). Had alot of success as well. Been driving 4th gens on track since 1999. But it got wrote off as the result of a dominant platform. Funny how that is not the case here.

 

From what I know, there ain't much difference between a max'ed out Fox and a max'ed out SN-95. Those two car should be very close.

Then you don't know much apparently.

The SN95 has a longer wheelbase, wider track width, better k-member / sway bar design, and better aero. All of these differences add up greatly.

 

I was refering to on track results. If what you say above is true, why are all the adjustments your asking for about giving to the Fox/SN-95 together and taking from the GM's?

 

At this point I'm disliking the back and forth w/ you. All this "What does it mean?" stuff is getting old.

[Glenn]

Then you don't know much apparently.

The SN95 has a longer wheelbase, wider track width, better k-member / sway bar design, and better aero. All of these differences add up greatly.

 

On second thought, we should lump the SN-95 in w/ all the adjustments the 4th gen gets. Looks alot like the list you use against them.

[CMC#11]

Then you don't know much apparently.

The SN95 has a longer wheelbase, wider track width, better k-member / sway bar design, and better aero. All of these differences add up greatly.

 

On second thought, we should lump the SN-95 in w/ all the adjustments the 4th gen gets. Looks alot like the list you use against them.

Have you heard Glenn, there is a 50 lb difference b/w the Fox and SN95. That is what I equate to the differences I listed previously.

 

There are additional differences when it compares to the GM platform, hence the difference in their weights vs the Fox + SN95.

 

And for the record, I'm not enjoying the discussion with you as well. Do you care to respond regarding your following comment:

"The difference in times is easily explainable if you know both drivers."

...or are you going to give another chicken-shit response?

[Al F.]

The cracks dont' appear in the floor due to a lack of vibration. quote]

 

LOL Well, what the hell do I know! I would LOVE to have a couple of Traqmate holders that could quickly clamp on the horizontal bar crossing the main hoop. Out of the way, quick, away from heat, away from the 4th gens floor. Any volunteers??

[Glenn]

Do you care to respond regarding your following comment:

"The difference in times is easily explainable if you know both drivers."

...or are you going to give another chicken-shit response?

 

You seem to be on the defensive here for no reason. Asking me to explain my comments endlessly. I felt I have been pretty clear from the get go, yet multiple versions of the same explination are not enough.

 

I know both drivers. So I have a perspective that most others here on the forum don't have. So that comment means I know both drivers and the background they have racing cars. 2 times the seat time in Proctors favor easily explains the less than .25 seconds in lap times. Others can comment on how massive a 1/4 second is between two top drivers, all the while have no first hand knowlege of these two guys. All they know is a name and a platform. As I said before, you may be more talented than Proctor, but I have no better way to determin this than with the info we have looked at thus far. Like it or not, all the data and stats are looked at by Directors w/ the drivers experiance level in mind.

 

Sorry, but I'll not comment further in your direction nor answer any of your requests for futher explanations here on the forums. You wanna talk, pic up the phone or meet me for lunch one day.

[Al F.]

I dont know Glenn, I dont think Kellam was the CMC equivalent of Alonso. He was fast, and rare in that he was fast in a mustang. That was two years ago and even I won a race then! I'm willing to bet that both Proctor and Mosty are faster now than they were in 2010.

 

I dont think a 1/4sec difference in best lap in a given session is big. As a matter of interest, if you average the difference in best lap in any race session for Mosty and Proctor for this year you get...1/4 second. It is, however, noteworthy that in all cases but one Proctor was quicker.

 

Do the same comparison between Mosty and Allford/Powell/Wright (all run 74.75) and that difference grows to almost 7 tenths. Thats significant.

[Glenn]

Do you think Kellam would be running 2010 times today? Surely not.

[CMC#11]

Al, can we post the "theoretical best lap" data from ECR?

 

I'd love to hear the excuses Glenn would make. I assume he is aware what it shows.

[roadracerwhite]

All of these threads have been friendly, for the most part, so far. Please keep them that way.

 

 

 

Thanks

[C6orGT]

Al,

I don't think Cody's and my lap times should be compared to Michael's from the event at Cresson this year. Michael was on new tires that were less than optimal for fast lap times that weekend. I was on tires that were ideal for fast lap times. Cody's fastest lap time Sunday was nearly 2 seconds faster than his fast lap from Saturday and 1 second faster than anyone elses for the weekend (not so sure that is legit).

I believe for that weekend there are some circumstances that can explain some of the differences. If we had raced against each other 5 or 6 weekends this year then better comparisons could be made.

Dan, Cody and myself were all there on Friday for the practice day. I'm sure that helped us a little versus Michael, James (was on new tires and didn't show speed until Sunday) and Glenn.

 

My conclusions from reviewing James and Michaels data:

Acceleration - No difference

James slightly better @ + G turns

Michael slightly better @ - G turns

Michael slightly better under braking

Michael lost .45 seconds on the last turn/straight (last 10 seconds of the lap)

Michael was actually ahead on lap time going into the last turn.

 

I don't see how it could be made any closer than it currently is. If something is given to one of the platforms or something is taken away from the other there will be a disparity in these 2 platforms.

 

Michael, if you're going to lobby for gains to your platform or losses to the other platforms don't allow them to take data from your car that shows it's just as good.

 

I truly believe that a very well prepared car and a very good driver can be competitve on a national level in any of the cars allowed in CMC per the current ruleset. Are some of the platforms easier to prep to a high level than others? Probably. (s197 great starting platform, High initial investment and Ford racing support, 4th gen very good starting platform, semi-high initial investment, good aftermarket CMC parts, 3rd gen good starting platform, low initial investment, quite a bit of development required, fox/SN95/SN99 not so good starting platform, low initial investment, lots of development required).

 

With that being said for the good of the series the S197 should not be banned from the series. With the limited number of new cars that fit the CMC ruleset it would be foolish to banish one that does. If it is banned then the series will become a vintage series and will die a slow death. Also for the good of the series I feel the fox/sn95/sn99 should be given the option to put a torque arm on their cars. We need to keep these cars as a viable option even if it means going further than conventional thinking would consider. The cars that have a PM3L will not see a significant performance gain. The cars that have the stock design will see a significant performance gain.

 

In looking at the breakdown of platform percentages versus percentages of wins, it can't be expected that they will match up. Do all the races have the exact breakdown of 35% 4th gens, 5% S197's, 16% 3rd gens and 42% fox/SN95/99? Since the answer is no the winning % of each platform cannot be expected to match the participation %. There are many other factors that also must be considered as well. Optimal car prep (weight, Horsepower, Torque, tires, brakes, suspension, transmission gears and rear gear), very good driver, the track and weather conditions to name a few. In looking at the percentages it looks to me the S197 is winning an extremely high percentage compared to there participation %.

 

Derek Wright

[CMC#11]

Derek, good points made. I will start by saying my lap times at Cresson when we raced were not a testament of what my car is capable of. My tires were new (which I don't think was the problem) but I did have a different spring setup on the car that in the end was just too soft. IMO, that is the reason I was off pace.

I do think the lap times, specifically by Cody, is what is key about that event. I held the track record at that track previously with a 1:24.2xx. Cody blew it away with a 1:23.6xx, in his first time there. It doesn't matter the fact that it was a magical lap and he didn't get close to that time the rest of the weekend. What matters is that his car was capable of it and did it. Both the mighty Jeremiah Kellam and I have never gotten within a 1/2 second of that time and I have been running that track for 8 years.

 

I'd like to see a comparison b/w the data we have from ECR for braking b/w James Proctor and Dan Allford.

 

In the data b/w me a James I clearly have a braking advantage. My car is 140 lbs lighter than James and I run Stoptech brakes compared to James' stock 2-piston calipers. That is a perfect recipe for a Mustang to do better in braking.

When racing Dan, we were dead even on brakes. What would Proctor's time be if his car had the braking capabilities of Dan's car?

Another thing to consider in braking is I run 3.9 degrees negative camber on my car compared to around 2.5 degrees on a 4th gen. This allows the 4th gen to have more tire on the ground for better braking.

 

Last, regarding the S197, I do think something needs to be done regarding its performance but I'd love to see it remain in the series.

[Al F.]

awesome stuff!! But this is about SN95s/Fox Vs GM. S197 is for a different thread and different drink

 

Derek...help me understand something. You make a great argument that there is no reason to adjust for parity, but then continue to say that for the good of the series the fox/sn95/99 should be given a torque arm. Is this just because you think the PM3L isnt a viable long term solution due to chassis failure?

[mitchntx1548534714]

Just to clarify and not to be a smart a$$, but isn't Michael the exception? Isn't he so passionately refered to as the "Alien", meaning one of the very few to grind out some incredible laps in the Fox/SN cars? If so, somehow that should be a factor.

Which also infers that repeating this type of testing with a couple other cars and drivers would be a good idea, if possible.

 

Gathering a broad specturm of data is always best. Agreed.

 

But why would or should an "alien" be exempted?

 

I guess I have a fundamental difference of opinion. If everyone should get a trophy, then tell me.

 

As a competitor I would find it almost insulting for an "alien" to work so hard for rules relief based on the results of "non-aliens". How big of a slap in the face is that?

 

And once the rules relief is implemented, what's the "alien" gonna do ... promise to run half throttle? only install 3 tires? As the "alien" drives off into the distance, tell me how that help the "non-aliens"?

 

Instead, I would like to know what it would take for me to get to that "alien" level and not throw bones to bolster my lack of ability, persistance, knowledge or willingness.

 

Don't give me an EASY button ... give me what it takes to be "alien-like".

 

Again, I completely understand the frustration with constant repair of a weak link. It sucks.

 

But we aren't going to the grocery store to buy diapers and canned formula.

 

We are asking more of these platforms than they were ever designed to produce. Stuff will break.

[soundguydave1548534741]

Just to clarify and not to be a smart a$$, but isn't Michael the exception? Isn't he so passionately refered to as the "Alien", meaning one of the very few to grind out some incredible laps in the Fox/SN cars? If so, somehow that should be a factor.

Which also infers that repeating this type of testing with a couple other cars and drivers would be a good idea, if possible.

 

Gathering a broad specturm of data is always best. Agreed.

Absolutely.

 

But why would or should an "alien" be exempted?

Nobody is saying they should be. Standard deviation, though, would tell us to throw out both the high-flyers and the low-hanging fruit. If you use the data from the "aliens," then you need to also use the data from the rookies.

 

I guess I have a fundamental difference of opinion. If everyone should get a trophy, then tell me.

Nobody, anywhere, in any of these threads has suggested that. We're talking about platform parity, nothing more.

 

As a competitor I would find it almost insulting for an "alien" to work so hard for rules relief based on the results of "non-aliens". How big of a slap in the face is that?

 

And once the rules relief is implemented, what's the "alien" gonna do ... promise to run half throttle? only install 3 tires? As the "alien" drives off into the distance, tell me how that help the "non-aliens"?

Derek (4th gen driver, with lots of SN95 experience) made the assertion that PM3L is roughly equivalent to a torque arm in terms of performance. One tears up the chassis, the other doesn't.

 

Instead, I would like to know what it would take for me to get to that "alien" level and not throw bones to bolster my lack of ability, persistance, knowledge or willingness.

 

Don't give me an EASY button ... give me what it takes to be "alien-like".

Get a blood transfusion from Pobst or Hamilton? We ALL can only rise to the limits of our physical abilities.

 

Again, I completely understand the frustration with constant repair of a weak link. It sucks.

 

But we aren't going to the grocery store to buy diapers and canned formula.

 

We are asking more of these platforms than they were ever designed to produce. Stuff will break.

Yes, it will, and yes it sucks. However, we have a few assertions to look at, and they're intertwined. First, to be competitive in a FOX/SN95 chassis, you need to eliminate the rear suspension bind. Second, to free up the rear suspension, you need to eliminate one of the upper opposing links. Third, that doing so will overstress the torque box and the remaining arm. Fourth, that a torque arm provides the same freedom of articulation without the damage. Fifth, that there is rough equivalency in terms of performance between the PM3L and the torque arm. Given all that, it becomes a cost question. The torque arm is under $500, and is a one-time expense. Running a PM3L costs nothing up front, but does have operational cost far in excess of that $500 with a VERY short ROI. Lastly, there's the safety issue. Taken in concert, there's no reason NOT to implement the RCR.

[Glenn]

Wrong. You must use peak performance of the platform to evaluate platform parity. We are looking for the best the chassis can do. Anything else is called driver parity. Thats like asking Usain Bolt to carry an extra 50lbs at the olympics since the other sprinters data shows a lesser perfromance result. Adjustments based on anything other than peak performance of a chassis is "handing out trophys for everyone".

[Glenn]

Has anyone called and asked the manufacture if they know what to expect in lap time reduction from adding a TA to the chassis. Surely they have tested this enough to know a rough answer.

[soundguydave1548534741]

Wrong. You must use peak performance of the platform to evaluate platform parity. We are looking for the best the chassis can do. Anything else is called driver parity. Thats like asking Usain Bolt to carry an extra 50lbs at the olympics since the other sprinters data shows a lesser perfromance result. Adjustments based on anything other than peak performance of a chassis is "handing out trophys for everyone".

 

Disingenuous argument. It's not asking Usain Bolt to carry an extra 50lbs, it's looking at ALL the runners and noting that those on Nike shoes are slower than the ones on Reeboks, UNLESS the Nike runners untie their right shoelaces. Now granted, the untied shoelace can cause a trip and an injury, but that's okay, because Usain Bolt is fast, we shouldn't allow velcro...

[D Algozine]

Has anyone called and asked the manufacture if they know what to expect in lap time reduction from adding a TA to the chassis. Surely they have tested this enough to know a rough answer.

 

Sure manufactures have done extensive testing with their product vs a PM3L ??? I think I saw a write in Road and track about it !!

[soundguydave1548534741]

Has anyone called and asked the manufacture if they know what to expect in lap time reduction from adding a TA to the chassis. Surely they have tested this enough to know a rough answer.

 

Actually, I think that's a good idea. I think two series directors, one pro and one con, should do a conference call with Maximum Motorsports, to avoid any suspicion of partisan positions. I also think that the comparison HAS to be between a PM3L car and a torque-arm car. If the answer is "a half second," but it's versus a bone stock vehicle, we can already hear the howls of outrage as we theoretically drop Michael's laptimes...

 

"Business hours are 9am-6pm, Mon-Fri, Pacific Time

 

(888) 378-8830 for calls placed from within the United States

International calls: (805) 544-8748"

[D Algozine]

Wrong. You must use peak performance of the platform to evaluate platform parity. We are looking for the best the chassis can do. Anything else is called driver parity. Thats like asking Usain Bolt to carry an extra 50lbs at the olympics since the other sprinters data shows a lesser perfromance result. Adjustments based on anything other than peak performance of a chassis is "handing out trophys for everyone".

 

Since we are apparently looking for absolutes (which is impossible with this type of situation) what gaurantee is there that any one of these cars/drivers are the BEST? Maybe someone else in a GM model would have out performed everyone else, by 2 seconds in this test. And maybe we should all put tin foil on our heads and watch out for black helicopters.

 

Edit; spelling, still can't type well on these phones

Edited October 25, 2012 by Guest

[Glenn]

So you previous analogy infered that we should take performance data from the fastest and slowest of those running Reeboks and equalize them to the fastest Nike wearing runner. That is the flaw. Average the whole field for all shoes, or don't. Don't use peak and valley data from Reebok and peak performance from Nike.

Anyone can selectively apply data to show the results they are after.

 

I've said it plenty of times.....

Mosty cannot get more out of the platform than it is cabable of doing. Period. If the other drivers can't match his laptimes in his car or thier cars w/ the same set-up, its not the platforms fault. And it's not Mostys fault. We don't give to the slow guys to help them get up to speed. We do give to the platform to help it get up to speed. If there were at least one more guy here in TX duplicating Mosty's results, I would be 100% on Mostys (and Fox's) side.

[Glenn]

Wrong. You must use peak performance of the platform to evaluate platform parity. We are looking for the best the chassis can do. Anything else is called driver parity. Thats like asking Usain Bolt to carry an extra 50lbs at the olympics since the other sprinters data shows a lesser perfromance result. Adjustments based on anything other than peak performance of a chassis is "handing out trophys for everyone".

 

Since we are apparently looking for absolutes (which is impossible with type of situation) what gaurantee is there that any one of these cars/drives are the BEST? Maybe some else in a GM model would have out performed everyone else, by 2 seconds in the is test. And maybe we should all put tin foil on our heads and watch out for black helicopters.

 

Totally agree. When there are 3-4 4th gens running close times, it is easy to make a safe assumption of peak performance. Combined w/ some off those 3-4 competing at a National level, and thier performance is quantified. It is not a perfect system. It is the parameters we have to work w/.

Consider for a momnet how Grand Am and Continental Tire do it - w/ all the cars on the same track durring the same weekend. The end result is better. Considering we are trying to balance cars allover the country all running different tracks and 99% of us never sharing the track w/ one another, I feel we have done a good job evaluating all this.

 

It is also important to know that there is one region (Region X) where Ford is king and all the GM guys are doing the same song and dance we see the Ford guys doing here. They are absolutly convinced that the Ford has the upper hand. From the world as they see it, they are right. And the same applies here. As for as the Ford guys on this forum are concerned, the GM's are dominant and there is not other possible answer. Somewhere in between is the trueth. If we made adjustments based on that regional data, Fords would be getting less track and adding 100lbs.

Why don't we? Its a judgement call. Some of it is a rsult of the input from that Regional Director.

And no, I'll not name the region.

[ShadowBolt]

Has anyone called and asked the manufacture if they know what to expect in lap time reduction from adding a TA to the chassis. Surely they have tested this enough to know a rough answer.

 

Your best post so far Glenn. I will call Maximum Motorsports today and ask that question. I'm going to guess they will know the difference between the torque arm and the Quadrabind but maybe not between the torque arm and the PM3 Link.

 

I'm willing to install the torque arm on my car and run all next season and not worry about points at all but I would want whatever Toyo Bucks I earn (if any). I don't know if anyone or everyone would have a problem with that but with Jay and I splitting time in the car we could see what differences (if any) there are accross a whole season with two drivers. I would also be willing to let Michael turn a few laps at every track to see what he can do with it.

 

JJ

[soundguydave1548534741]

So you previous analogy infered that we should take performance data from the fastest and slowest of those running Reeboks and equalize them to the fastest Nike wearing runner. That is the flaw. Average the whole field for all shoes, or don't. Don't use peak and valley data from Reebok and peak performance from Nike.

Nope, I never said that. The Usain Bolt analogy was yours, all I did was give him a PM3L.

Anyone can selectively apply data to show the results they are after.

Exactly. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

 

I've said it plenty of times.....

Mosty cannot get more out of the platform than it is cabable of doing. Period. If the other drivers can't match his laptimes in his car or thier cars w/ the same set-up, its not the platforms fault. And it's not Mostys fault. We don't give to the slow guys to help them get up to speed. We do give to the platform to help it get up to speed. If there were at least one more guy here in TX duplicating Mosty's results, I would be 100% on Mostys (and Fox's) side.

Helping the platform get up to speed is what we're talking about here. The ONLY way that we've seen the FOX/SN95 platform be competitive is with the PM3L. It's dangerous. It tears up the cars. It's expensive to "feed." Absent the PM3L, though, the platform is slow, and won't turn. All we're asking for is a way to equalize the chassis without the aforementioned drawbacks.